SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act and relevant part of the statement was extracted in the assessment order. Thus, based on the information received it is observed that the assessee Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited is one of the beneficiaries and has obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,21,93,468/- from the concerns

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases, and non- existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18 Alka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 DCIT vs. Sunder

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 passed by the Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN No.\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072584754(1) on 27.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.\nIn support of Grounds of Appeal, the Assessee is furnishing herewith Ground wise written\nsubmission, along with supporting documentary evidence(s) and/or documents as specified

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase form M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company. Further perusal of GSTR-1 data of assessee has revealed that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2018-19, accordingly the purchase made by the assessee amounting Rs.89,03,956/- was disallowed and was added in the income of assessee as unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchase bills from\nthe above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat\nname of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen\nJewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to\nRs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant\n5\nITA No. 453/JP/2024\nDCIT

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

section 145(3) relating to the AY 2004-05 on account of purchases made from such bogus concerns and gross profit rate of 17.5% was applied on declared turn over of Rs.8,46,70,623/-. Prior thereto, as regards AY 2003-04, books of accounts of the assessee were rejected on similar grounds and gross profit rate of 20

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

20 at Page 22 of its order dated 30.05.2008 Govindam Export vs. DCIT “Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in doubting the correctness of claimed purchases made from M/s Vinayak Overseas and M/s Meena Gems and export of the said goods and in invoking the provisions of section

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

20 at Page 22 of its order dated 30.05.2008\n“Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in\ndoubting the correctness of claimed purchases made from M/s Vinayak\nOverseas and M/s Meena Gems and export of the said goods and in invoking the\nprovisions of section 145(3) of the Act to estimate

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3), consequential rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, treatment of purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- made by the assessee from M/s. Sun Diam as not verifiable and consequential addition of Rs. 7,99,999/-, being 25% of above mentioned alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/-, and levy of tax thereon. In support

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

20 at Page 22 of its order dated 30.05.2008\n“Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in\ndoubting the correctness of claimed purchases made from M/s Vinayak\nOverseas and M/s Meena Gems and export of the said goods and in invoking the\nprovisions of section 145(3) of the Act to estimate

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assessee's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the 7 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT assessee

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

20 at Page 22 of its order dated 30.05.2008\n“Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in\ndoubting the correctness of claimed purchases made from M/s Vinayak\nOverseas and M/s Meena Gems and export of the said goods and in invoking the\nprovisions of section 145(3) of the Act to estimate

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

20 at Page 22 of its order dated 30.05.2008\n\"Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in\ndoubting the correctness of claimed purchases made from M/s Vinayak\nOverseas and M/s Meena Gems and export of the said goods and in invoking the\nprovisions of section 145(3) of the Act to estimate